--On Tuesday, March 10, 2009 1:08 PM -0400 Francis Swasey
On 3/10/09 12:20 PM, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
> --On Tuesday, March 10, 2009 10:49 AM -0400 Francis Swasey
>> To be specific, there are changes that make it into the master server,
>> and the auditlog overlay logs them, but the accesslog overlay does NOT
>> put them in the accesslog database, so they do not get sent to the
>> replica servers.
>> It seems to be some kind of race condition. I haven't figured out a way
>> to reproduce the failure yet.
> Oh, you have auditlog in place too? I don't believe you mentioned that
> before. I bet it is related to them both being enabled.
It is the first time I've mentioned it in this thread, but I've mentioned
it in previous threads.
So -- why would having auditlog and accesslog (and syncprov) all used
with a database cause accesslog to miss some of the changes?
I don't know. :/ But I do know I've never seen it in very write-intensive
environments, and that is a major difference.
Do writes to go auditlog before accesslog in your configuration? Maybe
there's a bug in auditlog under a high-write load where the changes don't
get cleaned up properly. If auditlog is being written first, try reversing
the order, so that accesslog gets the changes first (I assume that's
Principal Software Engineer
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration